|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Articles
|
|||||||
|
Articles |
Star-Crossed Lovers (2)J.D. Atkinson looks at the performance history of Romeo and JulietDateline: 9th December, 2004
There was one obvious solution to the problem of casting Romeo in an age when men were so unpopular in the part - cast a woman instead! In 1829 Ellen Tree played Romeo opposite the Juliet of Fanny Kemble, who described her performance as "the only occasion on which I acted Juliet to a Romeo who looked the part", and a number of other actresses followed her example. But the most distinguished female Romeo was also, in the opinion of many critics, the finest Romeo of the 19th century - Charlotte Cushman. In 1845 this American actress played Romeo at the Haymarket Theatre opposite her sister Susan's Juliet. She used a text which, despite being heavily cut and bowdlerized, was more faithful to the original than any version which had appeared on stage since Shakespeare's day; all of Garrick's "improvements" were removed and Romeo's youthful passion for Rosaline was expressed for the first time in many years. Said The Times: "For a long time Romeo has been a convention. Miss Cushman's Romeo is a living, breathing and ardent human being." One critic went so far as to compare Cushman's Romeo with Kean's Othello. Another said of the role that "At one time we have seen it a lifeless, sickly and repulsive conception; at another a rough, indelicate, animal picture." The latter comment sheds light on why actors disliked the role - men who excelled at playing Shakespeare's kings and tragic heroes found it impossible to cope with Romeo's adolescent outpourings, particularly his temper tantrum in Friar Lawrence's cell. Changes in 19th century theatre design inevitably had an effect on production styles. When Covent Garden burned down in 1808 and Drury Lane suffered the same fate a year later, both were rebuilt on a massive scale - over 3000 seats in each theatre, which created a cavernous space that cried out to be filled with operatic-style productions. The apron stage gave way to the proscenium arch and painted flats were augmented with cumbersome three-dimensional scenery. Shakespeare became synonymous with spectacle, even if producers had to cut huge chunks of text or rearrange it to reduce the number of lengthy scene changes. Even when the old patent theatre monopoly ended in 1843 and London acquired many smaller theatres, such was the power of tradition that the great Victorian actor-managers vied with one another to devise bigger crowd scenes and more spectacular visual effects. Henry Irving's 1882 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Lyceum was one of the most elaborate in the play's history, but not surprisingly the staging swamped the performances. Irving played a 44-year-old Romeo to the 36-year-old Juliet of Ellen Terry, and although the critics were less than enthusiastic the production ran for over one hundred performances.
By the beginning of the 20th century the days of Shakespeare-as-spectacle were numbered. William Poel's Elizabethan Stage Society experimented with basic sets, uncut texts and the use of boys in female roles. The ESS's final production in 1905 was Romeo and Juliet (with a young girl as Juliet). In 1913 the traditionalist Beerbohm Tree staged what was probably the last example of a Victorian-style Romeo and Juliet, but the influence of Poel and his European counterparts - not to mention escalating costs - doomed such extravaganzas to extinction. Barry Jackson's 1924 production at the Regent Theatre, starring John Gielgud and Gwen Frangcon-Davies, demonstrated where the future lay - with uncut texts and a rapid pace made possible by a single set. The problem of casting two performers who are able to cope with the emotional and technical demands of the title roles, but who look young enough to be credible, continues to plague directors! In writing this article I am heavily indebted to the Cambridge University Press' Romeo and Juliet (edited by James N. Loehlin), part of its fascinating Shakespeare in Production series.
|
||||||
|
|
